Jim's Standard Tobacco Company Reviews.
- Thread starter JimInks
- Start date
- Status
I look forward to it. It sounds tasty.
These above approaches are ill-advised, for reasons that will become clear.
Jim: When one is losing a debate, ad hominem is often the tactic of choice when one feels the ground getting slippery.
That I pay little attention to reviews, yours and others, I do so admire the work you put into them and consider some of them works to be enjoyed for what they are: Considered opinions, based on experience and palate, offered freely for the edification of others. For that, you have my admiration.
And, you do what you do a hell of a lot better than I would ever do!
That I pay little attention to reviews, yours and others, I do so admire the work you put into them and consider some of them works to be enjoyed for what they are: Considered opinions, based on experience and palate, offered freely for the edification of others. For that, you have my admiration.
And, you do what you do a hell of a lot better than I would ever do!
The term "ad hominem" is the most widely misused one on the internet.
Ad hominem: "You are stupid, therefore you are wrong."
Not: "You have bad motivations, therefore your reasoning is suspect."
"The term "ad hominem" is the most widely misused one on the internet."
I was thinking the same thing, where was/is the "ad hominem?"
Having read many of the "Ink File" reviews, I was concerned they might be shill reviews. My impression is that they are honest opinions and not default "5 stars out of 4 stars" reviews. I detest cronyism. I like his reviews generally and always look for them.
I will be interested, in the fullness of time, to see his ratings when the reviews are posted on Tobacco Reviews. Sound like at least a couple 3 stars.
I was thinking the same thing, where was/is the "ad hominem?"
Having read many of the "Ink File" reviews, I was concerned they might be shill reviews. My impression is that they are honest opinions and not default "5 stars out of 4 stars" reviews. I detest cronyism. I like his reviews generally and always look for them.
I will be interested, in the fullness of time, to see his ratings when the reviews are posted on Tobacco Reviews. Sound like at least a couple 3 stars.
When one brings feelings and prejudices into a debate, that is in fact an "ad hominem" attack. "Ad hominem" is indeed often misused or misunderstood. One's argument may develop from a prejudice (ie. An old recollection or feeling) which is in fact "ad hominem" as opposed to being an intellectual (well thought out and supported) response.
Amongst his many talents, Jim is respected for his reviews of various tobacco products. He takes considerable time and effort to produce a well thought out and equally well written review. It's no surprise to me that Jim shares these in the various forums to which he belongs. To subject his work to ridicule is more telling of the originator of that ridicule than of anything regarding Jim. To me, this ridicule smacks of sheer meanness, a part of a broader attack of a particular produce, born of pure ignorance and spite.
Jackswilling: I thank you for the kind words. I always try to be as objective as I am able, and having written so many reviews from so many different companies, shilling would be the last thing I would want to or even think of doing. It would only harm my efforts. I appreciate you having noted that. In the case of these blends, I gave all five four star ratings at TR. I really believe that they are that good. Russ and the guys worked hard to develop them, and the quality and time shows to me.
I generally try not to offer personal opinions on blends because I much prefer my reviews to let the reader decide for themselves whether or not I am right and if they agree or disagree, taste being such a subjective mistress. If it were possible to do so, I wouldn't even rate them because I'd much prefer others rate the reviews and blends as to their personal preference. That seems the most helpful, objective way to go about it.
Sablebrush: I thank you very much for what you wrote.
I generally try not to offer personal opinions on blends because I much prefer my reviews to let the reader decide for themselves whether or not I am right and if they agree or disagree, taste being such a subjective mistress. If it were possible to do so, I wouldn't even rate them because I'd much prefer others rate the reviews and blends as to their personal preference. That seems the most helpful, objective way to go about it.
Sablebrush: I thank you very much for what you wrote.
Never heard of "nizkor" but, as they are on the internet their observations must be correct. They present a couple of vignettes but fail to provide any cited definition. I'll have to stand my statement and cite "Merriam-Webster."
And, now I'm off to find the elusive Trumpeter Swan.
And, now I'm off to find the elusive Trumpeter Swan.
I've been smoking a pipe for 34 years but I only opened the door to non-UK and non-Europen blends about 18 months ago. There are now only 3 reviewers I always ook for when considering a new smoke - Jim, DK (who unfortunately no longer writes) and Pipestud. I look at others, but in these I trust. Their styles and reviews of the same tobaccos vary, but they all add value and give me a consistently sound basis for my own judgement. Jim takes the time and makes the effort to provide top-drawer, measured analysis of a wide range of blends. I don't always agree with him, but I value Jim's comments very highly. It is inevitable that Jim gets close to the blenders - he's a major voice in their market - but he is always looking to give us an honest, well-structured opinion. Jim provides us with a wonderful service - for free. How many times can you honestly say that?
Jim - thank you for your work. It will stand the test of time and continue to provide us with great advice long after other, more personal, views have been forgotten. Well done my friend!
Andy
Jim - thank you for your work. It will stand the test of time and continue to provide us with great advice long after other, more personal, views have been forgotten. Well done my friend!
Andy
Andy, you will be pleased to know that DK has posted reviews of our blends on TobaccoReviews:
http://www.tobaccoreviews.com/brand/944/standard-tobacco-company-of-pennsylvania
http://www.tobaccoreviews.com/brand/944/standard-tobacco-company-of-pennsylvania
I really look forward to trying these blends. Hope I can rope them into participating in one of our crawls. Pax
- Status